Mitomycin C dacryocystorhinostomy vs dacryocystorhinostomy alone: Anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation
Mitomycin C dacryocystorhinostomy showed no clear difference in anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation compared with dacryocystorhinostomy alone (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Mitomycin C dacryocystorhinostomy vs dacryocystorhinostomy alone Anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation · nasolacrimal duct obstruction Mitomycin C dacryocystorhinostomy showed no clear difference in anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation compared with dacryocystorhinostomy alone (low certainty). Antimetabolites as an adjunct to dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.02 [0.95, 1.11] | 4 studies · 306 participants | Low |
Mitomycin C dacryocystorhinostomy vs dacryocystorhinostomy alone Anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation · nasolacrimal duct obstruction Mitomycin C dacryocystorhinostomy probably leads to higher anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation compared with dacryocystorhinostomy alone (moderate certainty). Antimetabolites as an adjunct to dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.09 [1.04, 1.15] | 12 studies · 831 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antimetabolites as an adjunct to dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.